3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 46ce0fe97a6be7532ce6126bb26ce89fed81528c upstream.
When removing a (sibling) event we do:
raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
perf_group_detach(event);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
<hole>
perf_remove_from_context(event);
raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
...
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
Now, assuming the event is a sibling, it will be 'unreachable' for
things like ctx_sched_out() because that iterates the
groups->siblings, and we just unhooked the sibling.
So, if during <hole> we get ctx_sched_out(), it will miss the event
and not call event_sched_out() on it, leaving it programmed on the
PMU.
The subsequent perf_remove_from_context() call will find the ctx is
inactive and only call list_del_event() to remove the event from all
other lists.
Hereafter we can proceed to free the event; while still programmed!
Close this hole by moving perf_group_detach() inside the same
ctx->lock region(s) perf_remove_from_context() has.
The condition on inherited events only in __perf_event_exit_task() is
likely complete crap because non-inherited events are part of groups
too and we're tearing down just the same. But leave that for another
patch.
Most-likely-Fixes: e03a9a55b4e ("perf: Change close() semantics for group events")
Reported-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@xxxxxxxxx>
Much-staring-at-traces-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@xxxxxxxxx>
Much-staring-at-traces-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140505093124.GN17778@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -1196,6 +1196,11 @@ group_sched_out(struct perf_event *group
cpuctx->exclusive = 0;
}
+struct remove_event {
+ struct perf_event *event;
+ bool detach_group;
+};
+
/*
* Cross CPU call to remove a performance event
*
@@ -1204,12 +1209,15 @@ group_sched_out(struct perf_event *group
*/
static int __perf_remove_from_context(void *info)
{
- struct perf_event *event = info;
+ struct remove_event *re = info;
+ struct perf_event *event = re->event;
struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
struct perf_cpu_context *cpuctx = __get_cpu_context(ctx);
raw_spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
event_sched_out(event, cpuctx, ctx);
+ if (re->detach_group)
+ perf_group_detach(event);
list_del_event(event, ctx);
if (!ctx->nr_events && cpuctx->task_ctx == ctx) {
ctx->is_active = 0;
@@ -1234,10 +1242,14 @@ static int __perf_remove_from_context(vo
* When called from perf_event_exit_task, it's OK because the
* context has been detached from its task.
*/
-static void perf_remove_from_context(struct perf_event *event)
+static void perf_remove_from_context(struct perf_event *event, bool detach_group)
{
struct perf_event_context *ctx = event->ctx;
struct task_struct *task = ctx->task;
+ struct remove_event re = {
+ .event = event,
+ .detach_group = detach_group,
+ };
lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->mutex);
@@ -1246,12 +1258,12 @@ static void perf_remove_from_context(str
* Per cpu events are removed via an smp call and
* the removal is always successful.
*/
- cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, event);
+ cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, &re);
return;
}
retry:
- if (!task_function_call(task, __perf_remove_from_context, event))
+ if (!task_function_call(task, __perf_remove_from_context, &re))
return;
raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
@@ -1268,6 +1280,8 @@ retry:
* Since the task isn't running, its safe to remove the event, us
* holding the ctx->lock ensures the task won't get scheduled in.
*/
+ if (detach_group)
+ perf_group_detach(event);
list_del_event(event, ctx);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
}
@@ -2962,10 +2976,7 @@ int perf_event_release_kernel(struct per
* to trigger the AB-BA case.
*/
mutex_lock_nested(&ctx->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- perf_group_detach(event);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
- perf_remove_from_context(event);
+ perf_remove_from_context(event, true);
mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
free_event(event);
@@ -6505,7 +6516,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
struct perf_event_context *gctx = group_leader->ctx;
mutex_lock(&gctx->mutex);
- perf_remove_from_context(group_leader);
+ perf_remove_from_context(group_leader, false);
/*
* Removing from the context ends up with disabled
@@ -6515,7 +6526,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
perf_event__state_init(group_leader);
list_for_each_entry(sibling, &group_leader->sibling_list,
group_entry) {
- perf_remove_from_context(sibling);
+ perf_remove_from_context(sibling, false);
perf_event__state_init(sibling);
put_ctx(gctx);
}
@@ -6668,13 +6679,7 @@ __perf_event_exit_task(struct perf_event
struct perf_event_context *child_ctx,
struct task_struct *child)
{
- if (child_event->parent) {
- raw_spin_lock_irq(&child_ctx->lock);
- perf_group_detach(child_event);
- raw_spin_unlock_irq(&child_ctx->lock);
- }
-
- perf_remove_from_context(child_event);
+ perf_remove_from_context(child_event, !!child_event->parent);
/*
* It can happen that the parent exits first, and has events
@@ -7159,14 +7164,14 @@ static void perf_pmu_rotate_stop(struct
static void __perf_event_exit_context(void *__info)
{
+ struct remove_event re = { .detach_group = false };
struct perf_event_context *ctx = __info;
- struct perf_event *event;
perf_pmu_rotate_stop(ctx->pmu);
rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(event, &ctx->event_list, event_entry)
- __perf_remove_from_context(event);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(re.event, &ctx->event_list, event_entry)
+ __perf_remove_from_context(&re);
rcu_read_unlock();
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html